then other levels of football, where PATs are not so automatic, would follow suit.
A 2" block was permitted. Our team had at least 4 placekickers who could make a PAT (at least). This was a big advantage over half of our opponents who didn't even have one placekicker. A play from the 2 yard line was worth only 1 point.
i think 7 yards is plenty for a first down.
for a first down. The NFL's goal seems to be to add more "excitement" to the game. Passing plays are considered more "exciting" than running plays by the powers that be in the NFL, and if they wanted to force teams to pass more they could extend the length need for a first down to, say, 15 or 20 yards. Now teams would be forced to pass at least once per set of downs in order to get another set of downs.
the NFL LOVES scoring - so making it easier to extend drives would likely result in increased scoring
perhaps outlawing the handoff would work too
That's about as automatic as it gets. The only thing they could do is place the ball at the 30 and kick it from 47 yards to make it at least interesting. Another interesting suggestion is to place the ball on the one for a two pointer. That extra yard closer might make going for two more tempting.
Throwing dumb ideas out there for no good reason.
Who the hell has been complaining about extra points?
I've been saying this for several years now. They're nearly automatic and a waste of time. Less than 1% are missed.
NFL kickers make 99% of PAT's and about 85% of field goals. Narrowing the goal posts would make the PAT less automatic and change the risk/reward calculation for field goals promoting going for it on 4th down more. It would also reduce the chance of overtime.
doesnt require changing the rules, just adjusts for the fact that kickers have become amazingly good. The % of kicks sucessful has been rising for years.
An PAT from 2.5 yards to the 20 worth 1 point if kicked into the goal, 1 point if thrown into the endzone, and 2 if ran into the endzone defense can return it for 6.
PAT from 20-30 worth 2 if kicked, 2 thrown, and 4 if ran defense can return for 4.
PAT from 30+ worth 3 kicked and thrown and 6 if ran defense can return for 2.
Make the PAT a more interesting play, make comebacks possible, give teams incentive for trying blocks, or taking some risk for a harder try.
The PAT is part of the game.
A blocked PAT is a great play for the defense.
A botched PAT that turns into a great play by the holder can turn into an unexpected two points.
The concept I'm hearing is that the TD will count for 7, but if the team that scored goes for 2 and doesn't make it, then they will go back to getting 6 for the TD.
A score should never have points taken off the board, so I say keep the PAT in.
Again, I'm a Luddite and a traditionalist, so my stance is to be expected.
I don't know why we ever went to facemasks (just kidding).
I say we should bring back the drop kick! (But then we'd have to make the ball look more like a rugby football, and I'm not in favor of that.)
How about this? Change the rules to let the defense launch a guy into the air to block the PAT, like Bob Crable used to do.
A touchdown would be worth 6 points. At that point, the game would stop, the ref would ask the scoring team would you like to go for two or have a free point (similar to how they ask teams now if they want to accept or decline a penalty).
If they elect to get one point, they get one point and they kickoff.
If they elect to go for two, they go for two, and then they kickoff.
I think they simply need to make getting a PAT harder at the NFL level. Either move the line of scrimmage back on PATs, go to Rugby rules (i.e. kick from the spot of the TD or anywhere on a line perpendicular to the crossbar from the spot of the TD), or narrow the uprights.
I've seen this mentioned in various places. What happens if you score on a 90 yard play? Is there a maximum distance set for the try? At that point, if you absolutely needed the 7th point, say to tie a game, it could alter your strategy - you might have players running out of bounds at the 1 if the play originated from a distance where the XP would be challenging.
So if I scored on a 90 yard pass play and my player ran into the endzone in the middle of the goal line, I could kick from right in front of the goalposts.
However, if I scored on 2 yard touchdown run on a jet sweep and my ballcarrier scampered into the corner, I would have to kick from the sideline. In order to improve the kicking angle, I could move the ball back from the spot where the ballcarrier entered the endzone as far as I wanted, but that would also increase difficulty by increasing distance.
The link has a diagram under "Points from converting rugby tries" which demonstrates this better than my words.
from the point where the player crossed the goal line or on a straight line back from that point to wherever the scoring team felt comfortable that they could make the kick.
I would think if they want more excitement they could change the rules on permissible blocking techniques.
so what if it is automatic. a QB kneel is automatic as well, should you just end the game early if the winning team has the ball and the other team has no time outs?
keeping it in leaves the option for a fake extra point and prevents the situation where points are removed (which seems weird). You can say "TDs are six. either we give you a free 1 point, or try for 2" but I'd rather see an extra point than a free 1 point...
I don't mean get rid of the kick, I mean get rid of the point altogether. After you score a touchdown, worth six points, you run a normal play for two points. That seems to be the point they want to get to, and it's the next logical step after what they're trying to do here.
Under 1 minute left, the clock should stop after every play.
The professional leagues go through the motions on the off chance that an unlikely mistake will occur. In all my years of watching baseball, I think I've seen one or two wild pitches during intentional walks and maybe a balk.
The 99.8% conversion rate of PATs speaks for itself.
Are there any other plays in sport that are as much of a given as either the PAT or Intentional Walk?
Should we do away with traveling and double dribble infractions?
In fact, he nearly had a game tying intentional walk but was thrown out at home.
it out of the park. Only problem was he had to step across the plate to hit the ball, so he was called out instead of getting a home run.
an extra commercial in the time the extra point once took. Maybe they can cram that aggravating sea hag Flo from Progressive insurance and stupid kid running with a taco into the time they save by eliminating pat. I'm sure they can get at least two short ads into that time space to maximize profits. I'd rather watch the kick.
If they eliminate it from the NFL, someday college will do the same. And then high school football players will say "why do we still do this?"
I suppose the NFL can get a pay cut from kickers now though to boost their bottom line :).
Missed it when I was scanning the board.
1. They're pros, they should be able to perform at a higher level.
2. They're not pros, they shouldn't have to do that.
I have no problems with the rules differences with college and pros, e.g., having the college hash marks closer to the sidelines than in the pros. (In the pros they line up with the uprights.)
If they want to make field goals harder, start by moving the hashmarks back to where they used to be, at least for field goals. NFL kickers never have tough angles.
The extra point is already basically guaranteed. As you mentioned 99.5% of PATs are made. Coaches would go for the extra point in the same situations they currently go for 2.
...I'm not sure this does that. It basically eliminates the PAT and coaches would only decide to go for the extra point, as you said, in the same situations where they currently go for 2. It basically eliminates any uncertainty that a team will get 7 (since they don't have to kick the PAT, which is still missed around 0.5% of the time), but in late game situations where a team needs 8, they'd go for it risking going back to 6.
I don't care either way, I just don't think this proposed change does what they're looking for...
I read it more as the extra point currently adds nothing, so why keep doing it? I don't think they necessarily want to fundamentally change scoring strategy or add a new wrinkle to touchdowns, but just get rid of something that, at the professional level, is somewhat of a relic of the past, when kicking wasn't as certain as it is today.
Some will be more inclined to go for 2 than others, at least initially. At some point, I suspect most will just take the 7 as they essentially do now.
and the team wanted to go for 2, would they then get to start at the 2 yard line?
I remember a couple of years ago, the Bears scouted a schematic flaw in another team's PAT alignment and successfully ran a fake PAT for 2 points. This type of scouting would be eliminated by changing the PAT rules.
In general, special teams are a unique part of American football strategy, and doing away with the PAT would be another step in removing it (kickoff returns being the other step).
Bring some uncertainty back to the extra point. Make it a 40 yard kick.
Alternatively, have different points scales for different yardages. Make a 55 yard field goal?
it would punish a team that drove to the opponent's 5 yard line before kicking a FG compared to a team that only drove to the opponent's 25.
The team could have the option of kicking a longer extra point for more points.